The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-02-16
| CATO MCGUIRE,
v,
The STATE.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lafay
cite county. Hon. w. S. Featherston
Judge.
P. A. Rush, for the appellant.
| L. M. Miller, Attorney General, for
the State.
Cato McGuirk having lost mule
borrowed pistol and started in search
of it. He went as far as ono Clardy's
where he left his pistol and returned
home. A short time afterwards Clardy
sent word to McGuirk that he had found
TIE mule. McGuirk went TO Water
| Valley, his market town, about twenty
miles distant, returning by way of Clar-
dy's, about twenty miles, got the pistol
which he had left there, and concealing
it, carried it home, about ten miles. He
was indicted for carrying concealed
weapons. On the trial, there was evil
dence which tended to show that one
VIM. Henry, who lived in the Clardy
neighbo-hood, had threatened defendant
and also that one Sumack. about one year
before, had threatened to kill defendant,
but that Sumack had long since left the
country, and that defendant knew it.
The jury found the defendant guilty,
and he appealed.
ARNOLD, j., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
charged, is admitted by appellant, but
| he seeks refuge from the consequences
of the act in the exceptions contained in
| the statute, in favor of those who are
theatened with, or have good and suffi
cient reason to apprehend an attack, or
who are travelling or setting out on a
journey. Neither defence attempted to
be made by him is established, and no
error assigned can avail him.
1t is quite apparent that the weapon
was carried by appellant, not as pre-
caution against an apprehended attack
from either Sumack or Henry, but that
it was being carried home from place,
not shown to be beyond the circle of his
friends and acquaintance, where it had
been previously left by him. Besides,
the threat of Sumack made about year
before the offence alleged, was commit
ted, is too remote to constitute the basis
of justification, especially since appel
liant admits that shortly after the threat
was made and communicated to him, he
learned that Sumack left the country,
and that he had not seen or beard of
him since. Under these circumstances,
it cannot be said that appellant was
threatened. in such manner as to afford
good and sufficient re sson to app ehend
an attack, from this So ,ce. Tiple. VS..
The State, 81 Miss, 6S5. Bish on Stat
Crimes, sec. 7S8 b. The right reserved
by the statute to carry concealed weap-
ons, is co-extensive Only with the condi-
tions Prescribed by the statute, and
when these conditions cease, the right
ceases also. Enslava US. The State, 40
Ala, 1855. A mere threat does not Ii
cense person to carry concealed weap-
ons, unless it is of such character, and
made under such circumstar ces, az to
produce reasonable ground to apprehend
an attack from which one might lawful
ly defend himself by the use of such
weapons.
Appellant was not travelling or set
ting out on journey" in the meaning
of the statute. The travelling or set
ting out on journey" intended by the
statute to be an excuse for carrying
concealed weapons, means travel of
such distance as to take one beyond the
circle of his friends and acquaintance.
Gholson VS.. The State, SO Ala, SIG.
Bish on Stat. Grimes, sec. 788 a. This is
about as definite rule as can be deduced
from the language of the statute, unless
it is to be nullified by construction.
The right to carry concealed weapons,
conceded by the statute, to those travel
ling or setting out on journey" CON-
mences with the journey, and continues
until it ends or until they reach home, but
In this case, no matter how far appellant
had been from home, he received the
pistol in returning, within ten or twelve
miles OF his residence; and carrying it
home concealed, in this state of facts,
was net within the statutory exception.
Cocker va. The State, SO Ala, 90.
1t any error was committed in giving
or refusing instru ctions, it was error
without injury. Upon the testimony.
the verdict was as it should have been.
Affirmed.